By Brigitte L. Nacos
Gail
Collins observes in today’s New York Times that the “clamor for Hillary
Clinton to drop out of the presidential race has reached new levels of
intensity since the Pennsylvania primary.” Indeed, after
Clinton’s clear victory
in Pennsylvania, media columnists and analysts,
obviously no friends of Hillary, wasted no time to advise the junior Senator
from New York that this was the time to drop out with honor. What a nonsense! Why would any
candidate for the presidential nomination of one of the major political parties
throw the towel before the finish line is crossed by the victorious competitor?
The same voices in the mainstream media and in the blogosphere that contributed
mightily to and exploited the nasty tone of the Clinton-Obama race, are now
eager to proclaim the winner before the competition is over. Allegedly, to
preserve the Democrats’ golden opportunity to win the November election.
What is wrong with keeping this very close race going? Why would it be damaging to let the nominating convention make the final decision, if neither candidate receives the required number of pledged delegates to clinch the nomination? The fact that most presidential nominees in the post-reform era emerged early in the primary seasons does not preclude to run the whole race. The longer this competition lasts, the more voters get a chance to participate. What could be better for democracy?
I have heard all the arguments of the “drop out now” crowd. Nothing
can convince me. Not even the argument that time is needed to heal the deep
divisions between the Clinton and Obama partisans in order to beat Senator
McCain in fall. What is needed is not a premature end of the Clinton-Obama race
but an immediate end to the personal attacks that are more often launched from
media platforms than from the two sides. I have argued here before and repeat
now that continued punches below the belt on the part of or on behalf of the
two candidates are likely to hand John McCain the victory in October. But I am
equally convinced that the premature end of the race would have the same effect
because it would turn off the supporters of the drop-out beyond Election Day.
In short, then, Senator Clinton has no reason to quit.
P.S. While the media and Obama supporters remind us time and again that the Senator from Illinois leads Clinton not only in delegates but also in popular votes (although the delegates, not popular votes matter), Senator Clinton and her supporters are criticized for telling us that she actually leads in popular votes, if Florida and Michigan are counted (for the numbers, see RealClearPolitics). The Democratic leaders are ill advised if they do not find a way to give their partisans in the two states a say in the nominating process. But regardless of their decisions with respect to delegates, why shouldn’t Senator Clinton use her winning margin in Florida in particular and perhaps even the one in Michigan to demonstrate her support?
Comments